A Social Identity Model of Prosocial Behaviors Within Nonprot Organizations

Michael V. Tidwell
This study draws on social identity theory, while developing and testing the Social Identification Model of Prosocial Behavior among voluntary participants in nonprot organizations. This model posits relationships between organization identication, commitment, satisfaction, and prosocial behavior among nonprot volunteers. Path analysis results indicate successful identication of the model. Specically, when volunteers identied with their nonprot, they had higher levels of prosocial behaviors, commitment, and satisfaction. This study provides several important extensions to social identity theory and nonprot literatures while highlighting the need for further research examining motivations behind prosocial behaviors within nonprots.

VER 1 MILLION nonprot organizations currently operate in the United States. Reporting yearly revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars (Greenfield, 2001; Shervish and Havens, 1999), the nonprot sector as a whole is healthy and robust. Many of these organizations remain scally sound and operational through the philanthropy of those who work for or contribute financially to the organization. Indeed, recent surveys indicate that nonprofit volunteers represent the equivalent of over 9 million fulltime employees at a value of $225 billion while voluntarily contributing over 60 percent of nonprot revenues (INDEPENDENT SECTOR, 2001). These types of contributions play a pivotal role in the average nonprofits ability to remain functional (Greenberg, 2001; Organ, 1988). Given their centrality to nonprot strategy, understanding the antecedents to these prosocial behaviors is essential. A growing body of research has found that altruistic personality types, situational contingencies (Penner and Finkelstein, 1998; Omoto and Snyder, 1995), and volunteer role identity (Grube and Piliavin, 2000; Lee, Piliavin, and Call, 1999) are associated with prosocial behaviors. Other competing perspectives endorse moral or religious obligations as antecedents (Lam, 2002). However, these variables do not fully explain this fundamental nonprot outcome, in part because prosocial behavior decisions may be more strategic

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 15, no. 4, Summer 2005

Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

449

450

TIDWELL

Strong organizational identication has been shown to increase prosocial behaviors in for-prot organizations.

and functional (Clary and Snyder, 1991; Omoto and Snyder, 1995). Social identity theorists, for example, would posit that when participants feel oneness with their nonprot and value their attachment, they work to enhance their organization through increased volunteerism and cooperation (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Batson, Ahmad, and Tsang, 2002; Becker and Dhringa, 2001; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Participants are motivated to increasingly serve the organization because it improves the organizations image and functionality and indirectly improves their positive social identity (Tajfel, 1982, p. 24; Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994; Smidts, VanRiel, and Pruyn, 2001). Batson, Ahmad, and Tsang (2002) refer to these motivations as collectivistic and egoistic, respectively. Indeed, strong organizational identification has been shown to increase prosocial behaviors in for-prot organizations (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; OReilly and Chatman, 1986) and may explain related behaviors among nonprot volunteersthose who choose to join and participate in a nonprofit (Becker and Dhringa, 2001; Penner, 2002). However, to date, no study has used social identity theory to examine this relationship. This study seeks to accomplish three goals: expand the reach of social identity theory to the nonprot sector, contribute to the theorys general empirical validation, and add applied solutions to nonprot problems with recruitment, retention, and the satisfaction of volunteers. This last goal takes on increasing importance in an environment where nonprots are abundant and competition for volunteers is erce.

Literature Review
The literature governing volunteerism in nonprots comes from various elds of study. However, most nonprot research relevant to this study resides in the area of social psychology. It is within this discipline that social identity theory nds its home.

Social Identity Theory

Developed by Tajfel and Turner (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1985; Turner, 1982), social identity theory holds that people seek to catalogue themselves and others into social categories by memberships, afliation, age, gender, culture, and others (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). When considered in organizational contexts, this self-categorization process provides a way to order and compartmentalize organizational environments while defining the self in reference to the environment (Hogg, 2000; Hogg and Terry, 2000). As organizational identification develops, oneness with or belongingness to that collective is forged (Bartel, 2001; Tajfel and Turner, 1985), and out-group characteristics become more salient. The more one distinguishes the in-group from the out-group, the more that person identies with the collective (Hogg and Terry, 2000).

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

451

Organizational identication is a highly individualized and singularly experienced process; thus, the degree to which one achieves positive social identity (Tajfel, 1982, p. 24) with the collective ultimately varies (Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994; Nkomo and Cox, 1996). Nevertheless, organizational identification has normalizing and homogenizing effects on behaviors and attitudes because as participants cognitively assimilate to the in-group prototype (Hogg and Terry, 2000, p. 123), they begin to see these outcomes as collective enhancing and self-enhancing.

Social Identity Theory and Prosocial Behaviors

According to Ashforth and Mael (1989) and several others (Bartel, 2001; Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994; Mael and Ashforth, 1992), as participants develop an identication with the organization, they begin to see themselves as integral to the collective and their fates intertwined. This sense of connectedness leads to less fear of exploitation and increased trust and empathy for the collective (Kramer, 1993), making it easier to engage in prosocial behaviors (Organ, 1988). While not formally required or rewarded, prosocial behaviors are dened as any behavior performed for the benefit of the organization (Organ, 1990). These behaviors are typically performed to sustain and reify the organization (Bartel, 2001; Kramer, 1991, 1993; Turner, 1982). Supporting this theorizing, Mael and Ashforth (1992) found that college alumni who are high in organizational identification frequently engaged in prosocial behaviors on behalf of their alma mater. They made nancial contributions, engaged in informal recruiting, and attended school functions to support their institution. Similarly, OReilly and Chatman (1986) discovered corporate and student populations high in organizational identification engaged in prosocial behaviors geared toward furthering the goal and mission of their respective collectives. These behaviors included helping others and attending voluntary functions to enhance the organizations image. Given these and similar ndings (Becker and Dhringa, 2001; Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994), Kramer (1993, p. 244) concluded, People are more likely to cooperate with other members of an organization when their identication with the organization is salient. These findings should inform nonprofit research. While many nonprot participants choose to volunteer for their organization, in some cases treating their participation akin to a career (Grube and Piliavin, 2000, p. 1109), others, including some identifying as volunteers (Grube and Piliavin, 2000; Lee, Piliavin, and Call, 1999), engage in social loafing (Wilson, 2000). Delineating the cause of these differential outcomes is central to developing programs to boost prosocial behaviors among all nonprofit volunteers. While many scholars cite personality and situational contingencies (Penner and Finkelstein, 1998; Omoto and Snyder, 1995), social identity theory argues that a participants organizational identification leads to increased prosocial behaviors.

As participants develop an identication with the organization, they begin to see themselves as integral to the collective and their fates intertwined.

452

TIDWELL

Social identity theory argues that a participants organizational identication leads to increased prosocial behaviors.

Nonprofit volunteers high in organizational identification may be motivated to engage in prosocial behaviors to enhance their organizations functionality (Bartel, 2001; Kramer, 1991, 1993; Turner, 1982). As identification becomes more salient, they depersonalize (Hogg and Terry, 2000) and deemphasize self-interests in place of organizational interests, increasing the likelihood of prosocial behaviors (Kramer, 1993). Other participants may be driven by the positive social identity derived from identifying with an attractive (Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994), successful (Fisher and Wakeeld, 1998), and prestigious organization (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Smidts, VanRiel, and Pruyn, 2001). As an outgrowth of this identication, they may begin to contribute to the organization more frequently to help it maintain status, thereby indirectly achieving desirable personal ends. This supports some rational choice interpretations of prosocial behaviors like volunteering (see Govekar and Govekar, 2002, for detailed discussion) noting that participants will not engage in prosocial behaviors unless the benefits outweigh the costs. Nevertheless, regardless of personal or organizational motivations, once one self-categorizes into a particular group, as organizational identication increases, each participants prosocial behaviors may be influenced by pressures to conform to group standards (Homans, 1950; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939) and reluctance to let friends down (Wilson, 2000).

Social Identity Theory and Attitudinal Outcomes

Predicting the satisfaction and commitment levels of volunteers is essential, given the environmental constraints of most nonprots. We dene ourselves in part by our collectives. Thus, social identity theorists postulate that our attitudes and evaluative organizational judgments are natural consequences of the identication process (Bartel, 2001; Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994; Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, 2002; Terry and Hogg, 1999). If group-related attitudes become inconsistent with the collectives prototype, the collective, in an attempt to protect the groups interests, may exert direct or indirect pressure to change the attitude (Piliavin and Callero, 1991). For example, Salancik and Pfeffers theory of social information processing (1978) argues that group members persuade one another to alter their attitudes regarding workplace issues. Fulk (1993) and others (Rentsch, 1990) have found empirical support of this contention, noting that group membership is a powerful predictor of workplace attitudes. In other cases of incongruence, one may enter a state of cognitive dissonance and seek to reduce it by voluntarily changing the attitude. In particular, Festingers Cognitive Dissonance Theory (1957) proposed that we seek balance in life by maintaining consistency in our attitudes. When two sets of cognitions become incongruent, we may seek to reduce the dissonance by voluntarily changing one. Taken in the context of organizational identication, if our attitudes are perceived to be incongruent with those of our

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

453

collective, the resultant tension may induce an attitudinal shift. Therefore, ones attitudes are enhanced and inuenced by organizational identication (Bartel, 2001; Luhtanen and Crocker, 1991). This theorizing is best explained by data suggesting that organizational identication is a strong antecedent to organizational commitment (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; OReilly and Chatman, 1986). Although there has been considerable debate surrounding the differentiations between commitment and identication (OReilly and Chatman, 1986) recent scholarship indicates that in most cases, the two constructs are differentiable (Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn, 1995; Mael and Ashforth, 1992) yet strongly correlated. Indeed, previous empirical investigation bears this out (Mael, 1988). For example, Van Vianen (2000) found evidence noting that participants high in person-organization fit report similar levels of organizational commitment. Hence, as a volunteer identies with the collective, he or she is likely to maintain a concomitant level of commitment and loyalty to the organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Mael, 1988). Many social psychologists theorize that as organizational identication increases, satisfaction with the organization likely increases as well (Festinger, 1954; Turner and others, 1987). For example, Festinger (1954) argued that people draw distinctions between group members and nonmembers, resulting in feelings of contentment with their collective. Tangentially, Bartel (2001, p. 384) discusses how social comparisons of the in-group and out-group can affect how one thinks about the organization and the value they place on their organizational membership. Supporting such theorizing, Mael and Ashforth (1992) found a positive relationship between satisfaction and self-reported levels of organizational identification. Similar results have been found in related work (Cable and Judge, 1996; OReilly and Chatman, 1986). A nonprot volunteers organizational satisfaction and commitment are essential to nonprot outcomes. If participants are unsatised with or uncommitted to the nonprot, much like their for-prot counterparts, they may minimize their exposure by decreasing interactions or leaving the organization (Lee, Ashford, Walsh, and Mowday, 1992; Shore and Martin, 1989). For the average nonprot, this type of withdrawal could result in the loss of nancial and human resources (Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue, 1998). As a result, predicting a volunteers organization-centered attitudes through an easily discernable concept like organizational identification takes on increased importance for nonprot managers. To date, there has been limited analysis of the antecedents to these attitudes within the nonprot literature. However, Snyder and colleagues have found signicant antecedents in two separate studies. First, Snyder and Omoto (1992) found that those motivated by personal development needs such as self-esteem were more likely to maintain concomitant levels of commitment. This nding is plausible in the context of current organizational identification research.

Predicting the satisfaction and commitment levels of volunteers is essential.

454

TIDWELL

Participants high in organizational identication are likely to remain committed to an attractive (Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994), successful (Fisher and Wakeeld, 1998), and prestigious (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Smidts, VanRiel, and Pruyn, 2001) nonprot because these qualities may help develop and enhance their self-esteem (Tajfel, 1982). Moreover, Snyder, Omoto, and Crain (1999) discovered a positive relationship between ones interpersonal networks support for prosocial behaviors and commitment. Since organizational identication provides a similar network of support from ones in-group, participants high in organizational identification are also likely to stay committed.

A compelling body of nonprot scholarship has discovered empirical data suggesting prosocial behaviors are inuenced by organizational commitment and satisfaction.

Attitudinal Correlates of Prosocial Behaviors

Although organizational identification is theorized to predict prosocial behaviors, it is not a panacea. Other correlates, some attitudinal in nature, may explain additional variance in these important organization-centered behaviors. Specifically, organizational commitment and satisfaction may have multifaceted implications for this model. Consistent with for-profit examinations (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; OReilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ and Ryan, 1995), a compelling body of nonprot scholarship has discovered empirical data suggesting that prosocial behaviors are inuenced by organizational commitment and satisfaction. For example, in a study of volunteers for the American Cancer Society, Grube and Piliavin (2000) explored the relationship between affective commitment toward the American Cancer Society and hours spent volunteering. These data, extending Penner and Finkelsteins findings (1998), suggest a positive relationship between organizational commitment and hours spent volunteering. Stated alternatively, loyalty and attachment to ones collective increase the incidence of actions on behalf of the organization (Penner, 2002, p. 526; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Omoto and Snyder, 1995). Similarly, while the relationship between satisfaction and the performance of ones formal job duties has historically rendered weak and inconsistent results (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985; Vroom, 1964), researchers have found positive results with the performance of prosocial behaviors (Puffer, 1987; Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Organ and Ryan, 1995). In the two studies to date that have examined this in the context of nonprots, similar results emerged. Penner and Finkelstein (1998) found that satisfaction with the organization predicted length of service as a volunteer and time spent volunteering in AIDS clinics. Omoto and Snyders examination (1995) of AIDS volunteers yielded comparable results. Although these ndings are convincing and consistent with for-prot investigations, it is important to confirm these results with nonprofit volunteers who join their organization for reasons other than engaging in prosocial behaviors.

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

455

Figure 1. Hypothesized Social Identication Model of Prosocial Behavior

Affective Commitment Objective Volunteerism

Organizational Identification

Subjective Volunteerism

Satisfaction

Financial Contributions

Delineation of the Model

Given the preceding discussion, the Social Identification Model of Prosocial Behavior among nonprot volunteers is posited and three hypotheses are tested (see Figure 1): HYPOTHESIS 1. Organizational identification will be positively associated with frequency of prosocial behaviors (volunteerism and nancial contributions) in nonprot volunteers. HYPOTHESIS 2. Organizational identification will be positively associated with levels of organizational commitment and organizational satisfaction in nonprot volunteers. HYPOTHESIS 3. Organizational satisfaction and organizational commitment will be positively associated with prosocial behaviors among nonprot volunteers.

Method
Given these hypotheses, the following methods were utilized to examine the model. Specically, volunteers were recruited to participate in the study and original data were collected.

Sample
There were 435 volunteers of four Pacic Northwest nonprot organizations in the potential subject pool. These organizations offer multiple services to the local community, including counseling services, soup kitchens, and clothing drives. Given the longitudinal nature of the study, two data collections took place. One hundred eighty-ve surveys were returned at the rst data collection. One hundred sixtynine usable surveys were returned at the second data collection. The final response rate was 39 percent, typical for mail surveys of this kind (Penner and Finkelstein, 1998). In the sample were 94 women (55 percent) and 75 men (45 percent). The ethnic background of the

456

TIDWELL

Many of the measures used for this study were borrowed from for-prot examinations. However, some questions were altered to accommodate the uniqueness of life within nonprots.

participants is as follows: 157 Anglo American (92 percent), 7 African American (4 percent), 3 Asian (2 percent), and 2 Hispanic (1 percent). Twenty-seven of the participants were between the ages of twenty-six and thirty (16 percent), forty-two between thirty-one and thirty-ve years of age (25 percent), thirty-one between thirtysix and forty years of age (18 percent), twenty-four between the ages of forty-one and forty-ve (14 percent), and forty-ve were forty-six years of age or older (26 percent). Respondents averaged 4.6 years membership within their respective organizations. Finally, no significant nonresponse bias was found based on gender or age. Women composed 61 percent (n 265) of the potential subject pool, and the average age was thirty-six. However, tests of the age variable were limited since only one organization kept records of participants ages.

Procedures
The organizations offices were contacted to request participation. They provided the names and contact information for each member. Cover sheets requesting participation and surveys were mailed to each members home address with a self-addressed stamped return envelope. Each respondent was assured anonymity. The study was conducted over a four-week period with the organizational identication, self-reported prosocial behaviors, and demographic data collected at time 1. Since a common method variance problem can result from collecting the dependent and independent variables on the same survey from the same respondent, the commitment and satisfaction data were collected at time 2. To ensure the validity of the selfreported prosocial behaviors, prevent a percept-percept bias (a type of common method bias where the perceptions of the respondent are used to answer questions for both the independent and dependent variables), and mitigate collecting the organizational identification and prosocial behaviors data at the same time, the administrator most responsible for overseeing volunteerism was asked to report objective prosocial behaviors data for all members. This method ensured the anonymity of survey respondents and nonrespondents. All objective data were returned during weeks 2 and 3. Due to the short duration of the study, no reminder notices were mailed.

Measures
Many of the measures used for this study were borrowed from forprot examinations. However, some questions were altered to accommodate the uniqueness of life within nonprofits. To evaluate the coherence of the adapted measures, the items were assessed on a vepoint Likert scale (5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree) and reliability coefcients were computed.

Independent Variables
Organizational Identification. Maels measure of organizational identification (1988) was adapted for this study. Participants were

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

457

asked to respond to the following statements: When someone criticizes [organizations name], it feels like a personal insult, I am very interested in what others think about [organizations name], When I talk about [organizations name] with others, I usually say we rather than they, and [Organizations name] successes are my successes. The alpha level was .77. Commitment. Commitment was assessed by adapting the Meyer and Allen (1984) affective commitment measure. Participants were asked to respond to the following statements: I feel emotionally attached to [organizations name], [Organizations name] does not deserve my loyalty (R), and I would be happy to participate in [organizations name] for the rest of my life. The alpha coefficient was .87. Satisfaction. The Brayfield and Rothe (1951) measure of satisfaction was adapted to the parameters of this study. Specically, respondents replied to the following statements: I feel fairly satised with [organizations name], I nd real enjoyment when attending functions at [organizations name], I am often displeased when at [organizations name], and When I go to [organizations name] I feel right at home. The alpha level was .85.

Dependent Variables
Prosocial Behaviors. Prosocial behaviors were assessed using two subdimensions: volunteerism and financial contributions. Volunteerism was measured using a subjective and objective format. Respondents were asked to respond to the following statements by noting the frequency (5 all the time, 4 most of the time, 3 some of the time, 2 every now and then, 1 seldom) to which they do the following: I come early or stay late to help out, If something around [organizations name] needs to get done, I volunteer, and I do work around [organizations name] that many get paid to do in the business world. The alpha level was .96. To verify the validity of this subjective volunteerism measure, the administrator most responsible for overseeing volunteers answered the following question for each participant on the same five-point scale: How frequently does (participants name) engage in organization-related volunteerism? Cronbachs alpha noted the objective and subjective internal consistency rating was .80. Second, financial contributions were assessed by asking, How much of your monthly/yearly income do you voluntarily contribute to [organizations name]? Possible responses were, 0-1 percent, 2-4 percent, 5-7 percent, 8-10 percent, 11-12 percent, or 13 percent or above. This measure is used because Mael and Ashforth (1992) and Tompkins (1986) note that contributions may be heavily affected by income. While one person may give $5,000 a year of her $100,000 income, another may give $5,000 of her $50,000 income. When using a percentage-based calculation, the former is giving 5 percent of income and the latter is contributing 10 percent. Because some

458

TIDWELL

people have more to give, the percentage of their income contributed may be a more plausible assessment than actual contributions. Much like the volunteerism data, senior administrators were approached to disclose actual contributions, but no organization was willing to release members accounting records.

Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all variables are presented in Table 1. To evaluate the specied model, AMOS 4.01 statistical modeling software was used to conduct a path analysis. As an extension of multiple regression, path analysis is concerned with the predictive ordering of a set of variables. It yields a variety of an inferential test statistic noting the probability of correctly identifying the hypothesized model. Multiple fit indexes were computed and all noted the hypothesized model was identied (see Figure 2). Hypothesis 1 was supported. This hypothesis predicted participants organizational identification would be positively associated with their frequency of prosocial behaviors. As expected, analyses indicated organizational identification had a direct and significant relationship with financial contributions (beta .52), subjectively measured volunteerism (beta .19), and objectively measured volunteerism (beta .13). Hypothesis 2 was supported. The hypothesis posited a direct and positive relationship between organizational identication and organizational satisfaction and organizational commitment. As participants identified with their nonprofit, they reported increased satisfaction (beta .70) and commitment (beta .55). Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. This hypothesis suggested satisfaction and commitment would be positively related to engagement in prosocial behaviors. Satisfaction was signicantly related to subjectively measured volunteerism (beta .15) and objectively measured volunteerism (beta .17) in the hypothesized direction. The relationship with nancial contributions was not signicant. In

As participants identied with their nonprot, they reported increased satisfaction (beta .70) and commitment (beta .55).

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Mean OI SATIS COMMIT SUBVOL OBJVOL FINCONT PSBTOTAL 4.32 4.37 4.36 4.1 4.7 4.4 4.27 SD 0.64 0.73 0.87 1.18 1.85 1.9 1.2 OI 70** 55** 35** 28** 34** 43** SATIS COMMIT SUBVOL OBJVOL FINCONT

73** 36** 30** 12 26**

32** 25** 05 19*

73** 27** 68**

30** 57**

89**

Note: N 169. Decimal points are omitted. **.01 level. *.05 level.

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

459

Figure 2. Estimates of the Social Identication Model of Prosocial Behavior

.55

Affective Commitment R2 .31

.17

Objective Volunteerism R2 .10

Organizational Identification

.13 .19 .52

Subjective Volunteerism R2 .15

.70

Satisfaction R2 .49

.15

Financial Contributions R2 .14

addition, commitment was not a signicant correlate of volunteerism or nancial contributions.

Discussion
Based in social identity theory, this study developed and tested the Social Identication Model of Prosocial Behaviors among nonprot volunteers for three primary reasons. First, this study sought to capitalize on theoretical developments in research to help broaden the nonprofit literatures theory base. Second, given the tendency for scholarship to examine social identity theory in the context of for profit organizations, testing the theorys generalizability to other settings is important in its developmental process. Finally, at a more applied level, this model was posited to help nonprot managers better understand the attitudes and behaviors of the participants they greatly depend on but, in the absence of external controls such as promotion or pay increases, cannot command (Drucker, 1992, p. xv). Overall, tests of the proposed model were consistent with predictions set forth by social identity theory and related empirical works. The results conrmed that those high in organizational identification are more likely to engage in volunteerism and contribute nancially to their nonprot. These ndings offer an important extension to current models because much like altruism, those high in organizational identication may not have to be persuaded to engage in these behaviors. Consistent with previous works on nonprot volunteerism (Wilson, 2000), these ndings suggest that these participants may be motivated by a need to help their organization succeed and reluctance to let their organization down. Unlike altruism (a stable personality trait), however, the literature suggests that organizational identication may be increased when managers make consistent references to their mission, successes, and accomplishments while

The literature suggests that organizational identication may be increased when managers make consistent references to their mission, successes, and accomplishments while working to improve interpersonal relationships.

460

TIDWELL

working to improve interpersonal relationships (Fisher and Wakeeld, 1998; Smidts, VanRiel, and Pruyn, 2001). Knowledge of these and similar strategies gives nonprot managers some much-needed leverage to inuence organizational identication, the key determinant in prosocial behaviors performed for the primary benet of the organization (Barr and Pawar, 1995, p. 304). In addition, this study contributes to the nonprot literature by assessing multiple outcomes using both objective and subjective measures. Recent scholarship indicates that many nonprot volunteers are discriminatory when choosing a prosocial behavior. Penner and Finklestein (1998, p. 533) warned that it is advisable to specify what aspect or facet of [prosocial behaviors] one wished to predict because organizational participants may engage in some prosocial behaviors while abstaining from others. When assessed in the current study, the results were strong whether prosocial behaviors were assessed as one construct or separately as volunteerism and monetary giving. In fact, consistent with previous investigations (Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue, 1998), there was a strong relationship between the two variables. Future studies should examine a plethora of prosocial behaviors (such as mentoring and socializing newcomers) because identication in organizations is neither stable or fixed (Kramer, 1993, p. 255). That is, while identity may be highly relevant in one setting and greatly affect certain behaviors, Kramer concludes, the same identity may exert little inuence in settings where salience is low. Thus, some participants may believe volunteering, not contributing nancially, is part of their function as an identifying member. Results from this study also highlight the central role of identification in feelings of organizational commitment and satisfaction among participants. Consistent with previous empirical and theoretical inquiries (Cable and Judge, 1996), those high in organizational identication were more committed to and satised with their nonprot. These results were expected given the grounding provided by social identity theory and literature. Attraction-selection-attrition research (Schneider, 1987), for example, holds that people are attracted to organizations representing their central characteristics, they select to participate in those organizations, and once interests diverge, they leave those organizations. Stated more directly, a person who identifies with an organization remains committed until identication no longer exists. However, given the strong relationships between organizational identification and the attitudinal outcomes, it is possible to argue that the satisfaction and commitment data are retest results from the organizational identification responses, though recent scholarship and theory would argue that the constructs are differentiable (Adler and Adler, 1987; Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn, 1995; Mael and Ashforth, 1992) yet strongly correlated. Nevertheless, given the sample size, colinearity may be a factor.

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

461

Nonprot managers should take note that in todays environment where nonprofits are copious (INDEPENDENT SECTOR, 2001), volunteers whose identification wanes can exit one nonprofit and enter another in a matter of days, making them less exible regarding attitude change. More attention should be paid to ensuring commitment and satisfaction through organizational identication. Given current theoretical reasoning in the for-prot sector, this can be accomplished by putting procedures in place to recruit volunteers who already share the organizations vision and values. However, since it may be easier (and cheaper) to keep participants than it is to recruit new ones, more time should be spent creating an environment where identification can be sustained (Omoto and Snyder, 1995; Smidts, VanRiel, and Pruyn, 2001). Nonprots with culturally, socially, and economically diverse climates are likely to have many divergent identifying points, so enacting an ongoing socialization program may help maintain a consistent level of identication among members, thereby keeping them apprised of organization values and norms in both informative and rhetorical ways. Although the data suggest no signicant differences in the levels of identification based on age, gender, or ethnicity, nonprofit managers may be well served to create attractive small groups based on some afliative or categorical criteria (for example, interests or hobbies). Identification can occur at virtually any level of analysis (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Moreland and Levine, 2000; Moreland, Levine, and McMinn, 2001); thus, it should not be assumed that there are no alternatives to organization-level identication. One may highly identify with a subgroup within their nonprot and confer on the group the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes noted here, thereby indirectly working to sustain the organization (Albert and Whetten, 1985). The findings regarding the attitudinal predictors of prosocial behaviors are equally insightful. This study highlights the role that commitment to and satisfaction with a nonprofit may play in decisions to engage in prosocial behaviors. For example, although satisfied participants engage in more frequent volunteerism, they are not statistically more likely to contribute financially. This finding can be explained in two ways. First, since nearly 75 percent of this studys subjects were under the age of forty-six, they are more likely to have less disposable income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Contributing financially could place a strain on ones budget; thus, this behavior may not be a priority. Second, past studies have found that general attitudes are not always good predictors of specific behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977; Kraus, 1995). Instead, general attitudes like commitment and satisfaction are better predictors of general behaviors. The measurement of specific behaviors (for example, monetary giving) may be responsible for the lack of significant findings. This is an important conclusion within the nonprofit and wider for-profit literature. When measuring the

Since it may be easier (and cheaper) to keep participants than it is to recruit new ones, more time should be spent creating an environment where identication can be sustained.

462

TIDWELL

Nonprots operating in international settings and those with largely multicultural constituencies may be fertile ground for future exploration.

relationship between general attitudes and behaviors, the findings substantiate the notion that using multiple acts of general behaviors may be the most appropriate avenue to discover results. When volunteering and monetary giving are combined into one measure, significant results are obtained. Regardless of the aggregates statistical significance, although satisfied participants are more likely to volunteer, they cannot be counted on to make nancial contributions equal to their felt satisfaction. People volunteering are constantly in contact with those directly beneting from their behavior. However, benefactors do not always see the results of their donations and should be reminded of its importance. Stressing the relevance of this behavior to the individual, the organization, and its other constituencies may influence consistent behaviors (Borgida and Campbell, 1982; OKeefe, 2002; Prislin, 1987).

Limitations and Future Research

This studys relatively small sample may have limited its statistical power to detect signicant relationships. However, while this was the right population for tests of this model, future studies should look at larger and more diverse populations. Nonprots operating in international settings and those with largely multicultural constituencies may be fertile ground for future exploration. Second, although the attitudinal measures were obtained in a separate data collection and the volunteerism data were measured objectively and subjectively, a longer time span between data collections and additional data collections may have illuminated deeper ndings. In addition, organizational identications causality in the hypothesized model cannot be determined with the current design. Future studies may benet from more rigorous data collection and developing more objective methods of measuring prosocial behaviors. In conclusion, it is important to note that this is a small, preliminary attempt to study a large and complex issue. Despite these limitations, the hypothesized model makes value-added contributions to current nonprofit volunteerism models and the generalizability of social identity theory. It provides added theoretical parsimony, a vehicle to assess intrinsic and functionalistic motivations driving prosocial behaviors, and a way to evaluate multiple behavioral outcomes relevant to nonprot strategy and prior theory. With a more detailed understanding of the identification process, managers may be able to improve their most relevant performance indicators: volunteerism and nancial contributions. MICHAEL V. TIDWELL is assistant professor of management at Truman State University, where he teaches international business and organizational behavior. His current research explores the socialization of organizational newcomers in for-prot and nonprot organizations.

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

463

References
Adler, P. A., and Adler, P. Role Conict and Identity Salience: College Athletes and the Academic Role. Social Science Journal, 1987, 24, 443455. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. Attitudes and Normative Beliefs as Factors Inuencing Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 21, 19. Albert, S., and Whetten, D. Organizational Identity. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 7. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1985. Ashforth, B. E., and Mael, F . Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 2039. Barr, S. H., and Pawar, B. S. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Domain Specications for Three Middle Range Theories. Academy of Management Journal: Best Paper Proceedings, 1995, 302306. Bartel, C. A. Social Comparisons in Boundary-Spanning Work: Effects of Community Outreach on Members Organizational Identity and Identication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2001, 46, 379413. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., and Tsang, J. Four Motives for Community Involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 2002, 58, 429445. Becker, P. E., and Dhringa, P. H. Religious Involvement and Volunteering: Implications for Civil Society. Sociology of Religion, 2001, 62, 315335. Bentler, P. A., and Bonett, D. G. Signicance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 588606. Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., and Glynn, M. A. Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museum Members. Journal of Marketing, 1995, 59, 4657. Bollen, K. A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley, 1989. Borgida, E., and Campbell, B. Belief Relevance and Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Moderating Role of Personal Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 239247. Brayfield, A. H., and Rothe, H. F. An Index of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1951, 35, 307311. Cable, D. M., and Judge T. A. Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996, 67, 294311. Clary, E. G., and Snyder, M. A Functional Analysis of Altruism and Prosocial Behavior: The Case of Altruism. In M. Clark (ed.), Prosocial Behavior. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991. Drucker, P. F . Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., and Harquail, C. V. Organizational Images and Member Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994, 39, 239263.

464

TIDWELL

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., and Doosje, B. Self and Social Identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 2002, 53, 161186. Festinger, L. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117140. Fisher, R. J., and Wakeeld, K. Factors Leading to Group Identication: A Field Study of Winners and Losers. Psychology and Marketing, 1998, 15, 2340. Fulk, J. Social Construction of Communication Technology. Academy of Management Journal, 1993, 36, 921950. Govekar, P. L., and Govekar, M. A. Using Economic Theory and Research to Better Understand Volunteer Behavior. Nonprot Management and Leadership, 2002, 13, 3348. Greenberg, J. Managing Behavior in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001. Greenfield, J. The Nonprofit Handbook: Fundraising. (3rd ed.) New York: Wiley, 2001. Grube, J., and Piliavin, J. A. Role Identity, Organizational Experiences, and Volunteer Experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000, 26, 11081120. Hoge, D. R., Zech, C., McNamara, P ., and Donahue, M. J. The Value of Volunteers as Resources for Congregations. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 1998, 37, 470480. Hogg, M. A. Social Identity and Social Comparison. In J. Suls and L. Wheeler (eds.), Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and Research. New York: Plenum, 2000. Hogg, M. A., and Terry, D. J. Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, 121140. Homans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950. Iaffaldano, M., and Muchinsky, P. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1985, 97, 251273. INDEPENDENT SECTOR. The Nonprot Almanac in Brief: Facts and Figures on the Independent Sector. Washington, D.C.: INDEPENDENT SECTOR, 2001. Kramer, R. M. Intergroup Relations and Organizational Dilemmas: The Role of Categorization Processes. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 13. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1991. Kramer, R. M. Cooperation and Organizational Identification. In J. K. Murnighan (ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993. Kraus, S. J. Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A MetaAnalysis of the Empirical Literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1995, 21, 5875.

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

465

Lam, P. Y. As the Flocks Gather: How Religion Affects Voluntary Association Participation. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 2002, 41, 405422. Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., and Call, V. Giving Time, Money, and Blood: Similarities and Differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1999, 62, 276290. Lee, T. W., Ashford, S. J., Walsh, J. P., and Mowday, R. T. Commitment Propensity, Organizational Commitment, and Voluntary Turnover: A Longitudinal Study of Organizational Entry Processes. Journal of Management, 1992, 18, 1532. Luhtanen, R., and Crocker, J. Self-Esteem and Intergroup Comparisons: Toward a Theory of Collective Self-Esteem. In J. Suls and T. A. Wills (eds.), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1991. Mael, F . Organizational Identication: Construct Redenition and a Field Application with Organizational Alumni. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1988. Mael, F. A., and Ashforth, B. E. Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1992, 13, 103123. Mathieu, J. E., and Zajac, D. M. A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 108, 951995. Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. Testing the Side-Bet Theory of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69, 372378. Moreland, R. L., and Levine, J. M. Socialization in Organizations and Work Groups. In M. Turner (ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2000. Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., and McMinn, J. G. Self-Categorization and Work Group Socialization. In M. Hogg and D. Terry (eds.), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001. Nkomo, S. M., and Cox, T., Jr. Diverse Identities in Organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996. OKeefe, D. J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002. Omoto, A., and Snyder, M. Sustained Helping Without Obligation: Motivation, Longevity of Service, and Perceived Attitude Change Among AIDS Volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995, 68, 671686. OReilly, C., and Chatman, J. Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identication, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, 492499.

466

TIDWELL

Organ, D. W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. San Francisco: New Lexington Press, 1988. Organ, D. W. The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1990. Organ, D. W., and Konovsky, M. Cognitive Versus Affective Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74, 157164. Organ, D. W., and Ryan, K. A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology, 1995, 48, 775802. Penner, L. A. Dispositional and Organizational Influences on Sustained Volunteerism: An Interactionist Perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 2002, 58, 447467. Penner, L. A., and Finkelstein, M. A. Dispositional and Structural Determinants of Volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74, 525537. Piliavin, J. A., and Callero, P. L. Giving Blood: The Development of an Altruistic Identity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. Prislin, R. Attitude-Behaviour Relationship: Attitude Relevance and Behaviour Relevance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1987, 17, 483485. Puffer, S. Prosocial Behavior, Noncompliant Behavior, and Work Performance Among Commission Salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1987, 4, 615621. Rentsch, J. R. Climate and Culture: Interaction and Qualitative Differences in Organizational Meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75, 668681. Roethlisberger, F . J., and Dickson, W. J. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939. Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: HarperCollins, 1978. Schneider, B. The People Make the Place. Personnel Psychology, 1987, 40 (3), 437453. Shervish, P ., and Havens, J. Millionaires and the Millennium: New Estimates of the Forthcoming Wealth Transfer and the Prospects for a Gold Age of Philanthropy. Boston: Boston College Social Welfare Research Institute, 1999. Shore, L. M., and Martin, H. J. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Relation to Work Performance and Turnover Intentions. Human Relations, 1989, 42, 625638. Smidts, A., VanRiel, C.B.M., and Pruyn, A.T.H. The Impact of Employee Communication and Perceived External Prestige on Organizational Identification. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44, 10511062. Snyder, M., and Omoto, A. M. Who Helps and Why? The Psychology of AIDS Volunteerism. In S. Spacapan and S. Oskamp (eds.),

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL

OF

P R O S O C I A L B E H AV I O R S

467

Helping and Being Helped: Naturalistic Studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1992. Snyder, M., Omoto, A. M., and Crain, A. L. Punished for Their Good Deeds: Stigmatization of AIDS Volunteers. American Behavioral Scientist, 1999, 42, 11751192. Tajfel, H. Instrumentality, Identity and Social Comparisons. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relationships . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In S. Worcehl and W. G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (2nd ed.) Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1985. Terry, D. J., and Hogg, M. A. (eds.). Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1999. Tompkins, E. V. Possible Antecedents and Outcomes of Identication with a Parturient Organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1986. Turner, J. C. Towards a Cognitive Redenition of the Social Group. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relationships . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Turner, J. C., and others. Rediscovering the Social Group: A SelfCategorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. U.S. Census Bureau. Housing and Household Economics Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. [http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/hhinc/new02_001.htm]. Van Vianen, A.E.M. Person-Organization Fit: The Match Between Newcomers and Recruiters Preferences for Organizational Cultures. Personnel Psychology, 2000, 53, 113149. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Weiner, S. J., Saxon-Harrold, S.K.E., McCormack, M. T., and Kirsch, A. D. Balancing the Scales: Measuring the Contributions of Nonprot Organizations and Religious Congregations. Washington, D.C.: INDEPENDENT SECTOR, 2001. Wilson, J. Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 2000, 26, 215240.

For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.